http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =9558#9558THIS LETTER CONSTITUTES CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO YOU AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and is a timely request and demand for information and clarification specifically relating to the contents of your Letter 3176C dated October 20, 2008, a copy of which is enclosed. Please note that your letter erroneously refers to me as “Taxpayer”. Do not refer to me as “Taxpayer” until you have affirmatively and legally established me as a “Taxpayer” as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
Dear esmithers1: Please note that your response implies the silly position that you are not a "taxpayer." As defined in the Code, you are indeed a "taxpayer." And the IRS is not required to affirmatively and legally establish that you are a taxpayer before calling you a taxpayer, anyway.
Later, esmithers1 continues:
No, “esmithers1,” the IRS will not be able to “see” this, and you won’t either. Why? Because there is no requirement that a penalty notice include a quotation from the statute, and there is nothing in your verbiage that shows that your tax return filing was not frivolous.Your letter states that you have determined that my return of tax is frivolous and that you “have made this determination because what you submitted is based on positions that fall under one or both of the following:
- your information is based on positions identified as frivolous under Section 6702(c). (See Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883 [ . . . ]
- your information reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of the federal tax laws.”
The Law
What your letter fails to state is the complete pertinent components of Section 6702. [Here, “esmithers1” inserts quotations from section 6702.]
As you can see, your assertion that my 2007-1040 is somehow “frivolous” because it falls under one or both of Section 6702(a)(2)(A) or 6702(a)(2)(B), fails to meet the legal requirements under the law.
“esmithers1” continues with a request that the IRS identify the specific information that indicates that the self-assessment is incorrect, the frivolous position, etc., etc.
“esmithers1 also states:
(bolding added).Given that your letter is incomplete in that it alleges a frivolous position based on your partial recitation of the law, I am going to assume that you purposefully omitted the entire text of the law in a wrongful and likely illegal attempt to coerce me into changing my testimony under duress or the threat of penalty.
My understanding of your letter is as follows: You, Ms. Green, in your official capacity, are informing me that if I do not change my previously filed 2007 Form 1040 by "correcting" it within 30 days, you will make an assessment of tax against me in the form of a $5,000 civil penalty, and you will then attempt to take $5,000 from me. Furthermore, when you say that I need to "correct" my return, you mean that you want me to redact and withhold factual information that I believe to be true, and add and include information that I believe to be false, and then sign the "corrected" false return under penalties of perjury, and send you the "corrected" false return. After I send you the "corrected" false return, you will stop threatening to take $5000 from me.
Blah blah blah……
One thing occurs to me, though. This relates to the taxpayer’s frivolous 2007 Form 1040 tax return. Although it appears that the IRS is giving “esmithers1” the 30 days to withdraw his/her frivolous position, is the IRS required to do this? The 30 day rule under section 6702(b)(3) applies to “specified frivolous submissions” under section 6702(b). The way I read it, a frivolous Form 1040 tax return under section 6702(a) is NOT a section 6702(b) “specified frivolous submission”. And the 30 day rule under section 6702(b)(3) appears to apply ONLY to 6702(b) “specified frivolous submissions,” and not to section 6702(a) frivolous tax returns.
So, is the IRS actually being generous and kindly -- giving this nutball more opportunity than he or she actually legally deserves under the black letter of the law?
I would note that subsection (d) of section 6702 gives the IRS the authority to reduce the penalty if the IRS determines that such a reduction “would promote compliance with and administration of the Federal tax laws.” Giving the nutball an undeserved thirty day period to reconsider his or her stupidity could arguably “tie in” to the policy consideration of trying to administer section 6702 in a way that promotes compliance, etc.
Nutball “esmithers1” goes on to write drivel with quotes from criminal statutes and implying that it is the IRS personnel, and not the nutball, that is/are engaged in wrongful behavior.
Score a point in favor of that mean ol’, bad ol’ IRS. And nutball “esmithers1” is being given a chance he or she doesn’t deserve -- and doesn’t even realize it.
